Or I shall proclaim yet again that he had better do so!

Perhaps I'm a pretty big stickler on banking because I played at a game for some time where money would simply disappear way more often than it should have. There was no consistent banker every time, but when I ended up being the banker, I ran the bank like a nazi, and guess what... not a single shortage when I was in charge. That's better than I can say for just about anyone else who ever ran the bank at that game.

Which is a pretty good argument for cash playing ..... less bank transactions less chance for errors in the bank.

I tend to like the rule of being able to play with cash, but everyone has to buy in at least with the minimum with chips, but can add on money at any time. People who win money can take money off at any time.

This is so bad ducy?

I am not sure I agree, but aside from that, why does the title of this thread use the word "lending?"

Let me be the first to say, "YIKES!"

Anyway, I have no problem with the largest "chip" on the table being a specific bill size. I've never had any problem with hundreds playing in casinos, and I have no problem with hundreds or twenties (depending on the game I'm playing) playing in my game. For simplicity of counting stacks, viewing bets, etc. I limit cash to that specific bill type only.


As to an earlier thought about weighing the possible harm to a game by allowing a person to continually not have rebuy money because you've allowed him to buy chips from a player's stack... We're discussing edge-cases hopefully. In the overwhelming majority of buy-ins and re-buys, it should be cash, from pocket, to bank, for chips, into play.


If this is a recurring problem in your game, you most certainly need to address the root of it.

Yes, you're right. In fact, let's not play with chips at all. From now on, we'll just dump all of our cash out onto the table and play that way. That won't be confusing or inconvenient at all.

There's no problem with cash playing.
There's a problem with cash of varying denominations playing.

I agree with you Palimax, that limiting it to one denomination greatly improves the situation. I just can't imagine a realistic situation in which it's necessary, so I can't imagine allowing it at my game. If other people want to, that's fine. I have to say I would think twice about (not necessarily avoid but think twice about) attending a home game at which cash plays at all ever. It strikes me as more likely to be a sloppily run game.

This thread began as spin-off of DavidNB's thread where he mentioned establishing a rule of no chip lending in his home game.

And in that thread, I wanted to address the problem of players lending chips to other players. I m against it 100% as it takes money off the table. Players should come to the game with lots of money to make it thru the nite

Almost all of the NL and PL play that I've had live in Vegas used hundred dollar bills on the table - which greatly sped up the game.


In my game, although I generally don't need it, if the game went big and had a lot of money on the table, I'd have no objection to there being $20's in play instead of putting my $25 chips on the table.

How exactly did it speed up the game vs using $100 chips? I've played in those vegas games as well. I never saw any slowdown in the game due to a player having to buy chips as long as the chiprunners were doing their jobs.

Which is faster? Taking a hundred dollar bill out of your pocket and it being a valid instrument for playing, or taking a hundred dollar bill out of your pocket and waiting for staff to convert it to playing instruments?


Players could also instantly make change at the table when they sat down. Oh? $500? Throw me a couple of those. Here's a few stacks. No playing behind, with a dealer setting chips in front of you to mark what you owe the pot and then stopping the game after the hand to make change when your rack shows.


You also wouldn't get small quantities of hundred dollar CHIPS in a game that used hundred dollar bills. They work almost as flags. ..****ch that way that BRICKS of hundred dollar bills work in games that actually use flags. Single loose black chips in with stacks of red chips and green color would be disastrous.


He's all in? I call. Oh, he wins? How much to me? $235? ...what's easier to count out two green rectangles and seven red chips, or 47 red chips? It's not like the green rectangles are worth $92 and you need to do weird math.


Is letting cash play completely and utterly superior? I dunno. ...but it's certainly convenient and quick when used correctly. [Or casinos wouldn't do it.]